Posted
by
Soulskillon Sunday August 19, 2012 @05:18AM
from the having-trouble-getting-past-the-last-sentence dept.

ananyo writes "Developing oral contraceptives for men has not gone as swiftly as researchers imagined in the early 1970s; they suggested at the time that a 'male pill' was not far off. But researchers now report a new way to make male mice temporarily infertile. Although the treatment is not ready for human use, the method avoids some of the pitfalls of earlier attempts. The technique appears to have a much more specific action than previous methods: it impairs sperm production by blocking a protein called BRDT. This protein was singled out as a potential therapeutic target five years ago because it only occurs in the testes, where it is required for the division of sperm cells. If the approach proves safe in humans, it would be an improvement over hormone-based methods of male contraception, which are not completely effective and cause side effects such as mood swings, acne and a loss of libido (abstract). On the downside, however, the compound 'shrank the mice's testes.'"

Now that I think about it neither have I met anyone like that. Large, dangly balls tend to be quite nasty, in fact; it's usually the dangly thing ABOVE the balls that matters, not the balls themselves. I've never understood why men believe large balls are somehow attractive.

Sorry, that still doesn't make you qualified. There's a large discrepancy between how your "friends and relatives" will tell you how they feel and how they actually DO feel. When a story related to breasts or vaginas comes up, feel free to comment.

Since gaygirlie claims to be pansexual, I guess that would make her qualified.

To be honest, I have so little experience with men and their dangly bits that I guess I don't really qualify, and I possibly shouldn't have said anything in the first place. Also, after reading some of the comments here I guess I do see why the size of the balls matters; to some men it is apparently a similar body-image thing as e.g. weight is for some women, and even a small change lead to depression and loss of sexual functionality/interest. Ie. I appreciate the sentiment of you popping in, but I have to

Also consider the evolutionary perspective. You need big testicles when you need to generate a lot of semen; and you need that when it's a free for all (i.e. all males couple with all females), and you want more sperm just to improve your chances to impregnate a female who's been fucked by a dozen other guys - by beating them on the sperm count. That why chimps have huge testicles, for example, bigger than any other great ape - they are not monogamous like us, nor do they have harems like gorillas and orang

Yes. Smaller target for a knee, less sagging over time. I'd go for that. Sure, if they shriveled up like peanuts that might be a different story but say a 25-50% reduction. I'd be ok with that if that was the only side-effect and the procedure was reversible, from the fertility perspective.

As the Romans were perfectly happy to point out, where or who my dick goes into doesn't change the fact that it's my dick doing the going into and someone else getting the "gone into" done unto them.

Actually, most of them weren't particularly bothered by whether it was a "someone" the dick went into. Goat, bitch, slave, human, noble ; didn't much matter. Except for "noble" ; that could get you into some seriously deep shit.

The page 5 of the original article PDF [cell.com] has a size comparison of disected specimens. The treated mice testes weight is roughly halved but the size is 2^(1/3) ~ >0.70 of the untreated ones.

There is a meassurement device called Prader orchidometer [rsna.org] that works by comparison with standarized orbs. It's very difficult to get an accurate size/volume in vivo without using ultrasounds and if even the orchidometer method is not precise much less expect that anybody could notice a significant difference just looking at them.

Certainly after some time not even yourself will notice at all. Definitely noticeable if meassured or compared side by side, but most probably irrelevant for a partner. The major issue may be the own psychological selfesteem burden that some insecure people could have of knowing that their testes shrank a bit, but far worse and by large would be that you got instead a vasectomy and later couldn't reverse it.

Always could do nothing and let all the responsability to your girlfriend/wife behaving like a macho(TM) or just ask for her opinion about it and decide together since also are "her nuts".

Besides that it is also an issue that males have less to lose if. They accidently get some one pregnant. There is a lot less incentive for males to take contraceptives then woman. Now condoms on the other hand help prevent him from getting diseases, so there will be a higher usage rate. For the woman she has most to lose if she gets pregnant.

So until our culture changes where after the birth the male is far more responsible for the child, I don't see a huge popularity in male contraceptives.

Men are legally financially responsible for any child they generate if the woman chooses to press the point. In many states, women can dump their kids off at any number of places and be 100% clear of any responsibility for them. Women can choose to get an abortion and avoid further responsibility as well. Men do not have that option.

You must have missed the last 3 decades. Our culture has already changed.

This is a situation where the two of you should really have been talking all along. If you're in this fundamental a disagreement, maybe you shouldn't have gotten here. Sex is a bit different with the "I'm fertile NOW!" thrown in, of course, but that's part of life.

It would be best if baby would be welcomed into the world by loving parents. That may be ideal and rose-colored, but I think it's still a good goal. I also believe that birth control for timing and quantity is an important part of that ideal g

Well from a guy's perspective.0) I'm rather attached to my balls.1) We regularly think with our balls, so having our balls shrink is not considered a good thing. Imagine if a contraceptive shrunk your brains, would you be happy with that?2) Since there's already a side effect that's so measurable, I won't be surprised there are other negative side effects. "The Pill" for women already has been known to have long term effects on their libido and also affect their preference in men. Even stuff like hair-loss

I get this strange, uncanny feeling that it won't catch on. From my own experience and opinion, men get squicked-out when it comes to changing one of their body functions. Women are "meh, okay," when it comes to oral contraceptives (in SOME cases--me, it didn't work out at all) simply because they have to put up with major, stupid-ridiculous body issues over their entire lives (menstrual cycles, D-cups, pregnancy, menopause--just to name a few) while a man's changes are more subtle, quicker, and easily controllable (facial hair, voice changes, etc.). It'd be nice to, as Samwise says, 'Share the load,' (har har) but it'd take some time and re-thinking of roles.

I get this strange, uncanny feeling that it won't catch on. From my own experience and opinion, men get squicked-out when it comes to changing one of their body functions. Women are "meh, okay," when it comes to oral contraceptives (in SOME cases--me, it didn't work out at all) simply because they have to put up with major, stupid-ridiculous body issues over their entire lives (menstrual cycles, D-cups, pregnancy, menopause--just to name a few) while a man's changes are more subtle, quicker, and easily controllable (facial hair, voice changes, etc.). It'd be nice to, as Samwise says, 'Share the load,' (har har) but it'd take some time and re-thinking of roles.

Hell yes. Having a vasectomy was a bit of a mental hurdle to get over, although the difference there is it's permanent. Having had the vasectomy I'd still consider taking this if the smaller testes thing was a guarantee (and they didn't keep shrinking below the desired size), and they didn't result in any changes to sex drive.

I thought they could do a reversal for those who changed their minds? Either way, I think more and more men are evolving past their insecurities with body issues and it MAY catch on. Hoping so, anyway. Having more and more options on the table involving both sexes in preventing pregnancy, especially if either the man or woman can't DO oral contraceptives (as it was for me, previously stated) is a must, imho.

Actually, the problem is that it will reduce the need for condoms. Getting some deadly STD is a lot more life changing then an unplanned pregnancy. Especially in today's society when single parents are quite common.

Perhaps, but for a married couple who don't want any more kids, or ANY kids altogether, it can be beneficial to their love lives if one or both uses oral contraceptives. And really, MOST women (though not all, unfortunately) understand that birth control pills don't prevent STDs, but we take it anyway AND condom use is encouraged.

I was thinking the same thing. There's no way that the side effect they list at the end of the article isn't going to trigger all kinds of castration anxiety, even if it's perfectly safe and reversible.

So what's your standard for manhood, then? Mine involves concepts like "keeping your word," "standing up for what's right," and "taking care of your family," and it's hard to see how a minivan or a vasectomy interferes with any of those things. But maybe you're using some different set of criteria.

I really just don't get why. My wife had a contraceptive implant. One needle in the arm, bam, protected for 3 years. Because it introduces the drug into the bloodstream in a slow continuous way, rather than in one big hit each day with the tablets, side-effects are generally much milder. When we wanted to have kids, we took it out - just one needle. When we want to permanently not have any more kids, I'll have a vasectomy.

I mean, I understand some women have reactions to the pill, even in the implant-form.

This isn't the first time I've heard reports of negative social feedback from early large breasts. I'm not disputing your experience, but I don't get it. I thought men were obsessed with the-larger-the-better breasts, hence the popularity of padded bras and implants. Is it the girls that tease the ones who develop large/early? You'd think the guys would all want to be your best friend (maybe that's exactly the unwanted attention you refer to).

I can tell you, though, that not all early/large girls find it a liability. I remember one in my high school that used them to get guys to do her schoolwork for her.

I actually dislike women who do that. I find it disingenuous, and really, if you want to feel productive and empowered, do it your own effing self. Can't bitch later, "I'm a strong woman, don't treat me like a second-class citizen!" if you're pulling crap like that.

ANY-way. I was an insecure, introverted thing growing up, so it didn't take teasing. You can relate it to a guy's experience, getting an unwanted erection, only it's ALWAYS there. You feel like you're getting stared at, and I hated that feeling. I usually wore baggy shirts and other unflattering items of wear, but I'll never forget when we had to dress up for a mock trial of 'Mr. Alcohol' for a science-health class. I grabbed the only good clothes I had, a sweater I never wore (my Nana had the most boring taste in clothes) and it ended up being WAY too tight than I'd wanted. Suddenly, the geeky girl boys never paid attention to gained a crowd of sudden admirers. I find it funny nowadays, but back then I knew why and hated it.

You're right, not all girls feel that way. But when you're a sensitive, relatively unpopular girl who actually feared sex (for ex., I told my sixth grade boyfriend that I wasn't getting married, because my view was that marriage meant sexsexsex... funny, eh? Lol) you do NOT want guys staring at your boobs. I still feel that way sometimes, mainly because I'm the opposite of that girl you mentioned: I like being noticed for actual attributes, not my body. It ain't much to-do anymore, anyway.;)

We're not. Personally, I find the most attractive breast size to be one I can fully cup with my own palms, and I know from a few other male friends that they have similar preferences. I don't know where that strange myth of bigger is better originates, but it actually often results in shapes that are less than attractive.

And seriously, I don't know what your mom or girlfriend or babysitter did to you, but your martyr complex needs some attention. Do you honestly think all women get by on their looks and bodies, even when it comes to jobs (that, might I add, women get paid less than men in most cases, even when they work just as hard) and working on relationships? That's a crock. Maybe SOME do, but tons of men are just as asshole-y.

Try being a man in a job interview and having to rely solely on merit and get back to me. Try being a man and getting out of a traffic ticket and get back to me. Try being a man and actually having to take some risk and do some work just to have a relationship, let alone a good one.

Despite presumably being a biologically adult male human being, you've clearly never actually been a man yourself. Why don't you try it and get back to us before you start telling others what it's like.

I said voice, didn't I? Even if I didn't, the voice change doesn't last longer than a few years, neither does the formation of an Adam's Apple. By the time a man is grown at 18-21, they're basically in the same body they'll be in at 60. Changes, yes, but the norm for both sexes. Erectile dysfunction is stay or go, yes. But I'm talking long-term effects that you have to deal with, some quite unpleasantly.

"Perhaps we don't actually give birth, but aside from that, the physical frustrations of our sexes are at

I researched the availability of male birth control after the first time I ended up in the bedroom with a woman who was all "Oh you don't want kids, that's okay, I'm on the pill. No need to use a condom. NO. NO CONDOM! OKAY THEN, BUT USE THIS CONDOM, NOT YOURS! YOURS IS TOO UNBROKEN!"

Sounds silly, right? Apparently it's not that rare, and the older I get (or rather the older the girls I date get), the more common it gets.

So, I had to choose between exclusively dating girls half my age, find a way to put birth control under MY control since I don't want to procreate, or well, just live with it. A lot of guys choose the latter, which I suppose is why a lot of guys become fathers once their luck runs out. I'm not that kind of stupid.

So I just went with the other two options. Girls half my age are usually quite happy when they hear I've had a vasectomy, while a lot of older girls suddenly remember they need to wash their hair this saturday. Sunday. Every day. Every possible day I could ever meet them on, ever. They will have the cleanest hair ever, but they're not risking having sex with an infertile guy. Even though they supposedly are okay with that I don't want kids.

And women are surprised that we're confused by their behaviours...

Anyway I probably would have gone with the vasectomy anyway, but it would have been awesome to have a pill for when I was too young to legally do so. (25 here in Sweden.) So I really do hope that this thing takes off... This time. In difference of all the other ones, that have been in development for decades, and even undergoing human trials.

On the flip side that whole shrinking testes thing is a bit of a marketing problem if it persists in guys. Not for me per se, but generally guys seem to put a lot of stock in their nuts. I mean it's even made the language: "You've got balls." Having smaller balls makes you less of a man. No logic about that either... So most guys wouldn't buy this pill, even if it did work.

Gotta wonder how much of an asshole you are in person so that you only find girls like that who would endure staying in a room with you. Oh wait, you are just a misogynist idiot and your stories are mostly anally extracted...

Only find that type? I think you are overlooking the obvious here. When I find one that isn't, I keep her. Hence why I've spent about three quarters of my adult life in long term (2+ years) relationships. When I find a woman who genuinly didn't want to have kids, and who matched me well in most other ways, I even married her. Five years later, and we got divorced... She wanted more big city life, I prefer the countryside. These things happen. Now I'm dating again, and oh look... Girls my age (30+) either ha

Well, of course our experience would differ - we are very different people clearly, with very different search criteria. Let's say you look for girls of type U. Since girls of type T and V are similar, you'll dismiss all other girls, but you'll end up having to look closer at girls in the group TUV in order to find the ones that match best - the Us. Meanwhile I look for girls of type maybe I'm looking for type V, but since type U and W have similar characteristics, I dismiss all other girls and end up looki

Well, of course our experience would differ - we are very different people clearly, with very different search criteria. Let's say you look for girls of type U. Since girls of type T and V are similar, you'll dismiss all other girls, but you'll end up having to look closer at girls in the group TUV in order to find the ones that match best - the Us. Meanwhile I look for girls of type maybe I'm looking for type V, but since type U and W have similar characteristics, I dismiss all other girls and end up looking closer at girls in the group UVW. And thus there are girls I look at that you never meet, and girls you look at that I never meet. Because we dismiss them offhand due to other more immediate reasons.

Of course more likely you look for girls in the group ABC and I look in the group XYZ, but that's largely another story. Even in my subset these women are not the majority, but since they WILL lie and deceive to get their goals, they are over-represented in the girls that get past the first checks and balances.

So getting a vasectomy for me was a simple choice and an easy solution. I don't want to procreate, and telling girls that up front had no result. But telling them up front that I've had a vasectomy and CAN NOT procreate, well that is a new check that weeds out any of these crazies quickly, efficiently, and decisively.

And you can call me an ass-hole all you want, I still say Tacitus is overrated.:P

It's a typical double-standard like several we have regarding women. It's because we don't really want to think of them as equals, we want to think of them as more than equal to prove what a knight in shining armor we are.

A woman who plans for her future, protects herself from risks she does not want to take, and won't let a man take advantage of her is a strong woman.

A man who plans for his future, protects himself from risks he does not want to take, and won't let a woman take advantage of him.. well that guy's an asshole.

That's the double standard. I say let them call you an asshole. No man should be tricked into being a father. It should be an equal, bilateral decision.

It's estimated that 1/2 of all pregnancies in the US are unplanned. Really, every child should be wanted by both parents. Willing parents are the best parents. If this world only had children that were wanted, the quality of child rearing that each child gets is going to be far better. Population explosion could possibly come under control as well.

+1 on your post. It is just as important for men to have control over reproduction- modern society demands they are 50% liable for children (with which I do agree).

I would only add that there should also be no financial rewards to women having children, making sure it is the CHILDREN that are wanted, not the money from the government (yes, this is a big problem with certain socioeconomic populations).

FWIW, here in Ontario family law judges are bound to award child support by applying a chart called the Child Support Guidelines. It takes into account the number of children and the parent's individual income. Equality never enters the picture. If the parents have joint custody and one makes $10,000 / year while the other makes $60,000 and they have two children, the first parent owes a grand total of $0 / month while the second must pay over $900 / month (according to 2010 numbers).

The only time equalization can possibly occur is in the case of joint custody and, say, their incomes just happen to be equal. They therefore need to issue a payment to the other every month for the exact same amount, and so the two payments just happen to cancel each other out.

While double income families are becoming more and more common, there is a LOT of incentive for one partner to become a stay-at-home-parent if they have no moral or ethical qualms about turning their partner into a potential slave. Rather than look at it as: the parent who worked made their own sacrifice by working harder (in some cases two or more jobs) in order to give the stay-at-home parent the opportunity to be with their children all day, "society" tends to take the view that having kids is a major sacrifice (how nice for the kids, huh?) and if someone stays home to "raise your kids" then you owe them (the parent, not the children) individual financial (spousal) support ON TOP OF child support.

Two friends of mine lived together for some years as common-law spouses, never legally married, but they had children when they broke up. The female sought legal counsel and later explained to me that her lawyer was baffled that she would actually want to seek work and earn her keep. The lawyer took it as her job to achieve a state where my friend would not have to work thanks to the spousal support (in addition to child support) that she could expect to collect from her ex on top of various government programs.

We hear a lot about misogyny, but I'm starting to witness more and more misandry over the years. The misogyny card almost seems like an excuse or a red herring these days. Women may have been treated unfairly in marriage and that needed to be remedied, but I don't see any equality to be found anywhere. Instead I see giving women more and more advantages by taking them away from men.

Development is much further along than this drug, RISUG could be available within the next five-ten years. It's available right now if you're in India and willing to be a guinea pig. No testicle shrinkage, though the Wikipedia article say there might be other drawbacks. The article says that there's no evidence for adverse effects though... which makes me wonder why it brings that up at all.

Is is really a good thing to give people more options to only block pregnancy instead of pregnancy and STDs?Blocking pregnancy is really not good enough for any contraceptive. When/if this came out I predict a significant increase in STDs.

Also we men really do not have the best track record for honesty related to sex. And "I am on the pill" is a statement that cannot be verified.

Right now one big social problem is unwanted kids, public welfare, and family courts. The problem is there are lots if incentives for poor single women to get pregnant. They get better preferential treatment for things like housing, WIC, college, ect. If there was a male pill or reversible chemical vasecomy the change in social dynamics would change as severely as when the pill for women came out.

Women, who now have essentially the ability to get pregnant when they want to, will have to ask a man for permission to become pregnant, maybe even beg for permission to be a mother. Do they actually understand the shift in reproductive power that unthinking feminists have been pushing for for so long? Do they realize they lose control of their own pregancies? No more Tom Brady and Giselle kinda thing. No more babies by philandering pretty-boy candidates. No more rock star accidents. No more (oops) having that second child because you want one and hubby maybe isn't so keen. And can a silly woman who depends on a man to take his pill trust him to do so? No. Think of pregnancy as revenge etc., an act of aggression. Male contraception empowers men in a way that women may not find so "fair." Nobody really knew the society-wide changes female contraception would bring starting in the 1960s. Perhaps we are not really projecting the changes easy male contraception in pill form will bring in the future as its benefits to men become widely perceived by them.

There is a distinction. Decisions regarding the sexual are oftentimes made spontaneously. Yes, even the pregnancy-part of it. A condom is a man's to carry, that's true, but it deals with the spur of the moment, not with anything that you can reconsider in a day or two. Presumably, the pill for men will take a while to wear off.

Don't you love it when a new, wonderful and advance in science is reduced to "YEA! Now we can get even with the wimmins for all those RIGHTS they have!" with these guys? It's not about, "Nice, now I can control what my body does and what it WON'T do, preventing unwanted pregnancies." No. It's an immediate, ill-perceived tool of revenge.

I'm just gonna say it, cos' I've had it: to those guys, with all your accusations and revenge tactics? We don't want to be pregnant with your kid. Sorry to disappoint, but we're not all lining up for your DNA like you think we are. It's like being scared of a gay guy cos' he's gonna check you out--the assumption that you're worth being checked-out makes most of them laugh.

I doubt the pill will bring about any real social change; There's already effective male birth control, it's called a condom. Men don't want to wear it. Giving them more choices in birth control won't result in a significant change; A lot of men will then not wear a condom or take the pill or get their tubes tied. Giving people options doesn't make them more responsible. Male birth control won't cause a paradigm shift. If you ask me, it'll just be more evidence of what those feminists you seem to hate

What is this, this putting his wallet in involuntarily? Are you talking about the woman getting pregnant and the man having to pay child support? Well... um, if the man in this hypothetical situation was raped for that there sperm, then sure--he shouldn't pay a red cent. If he wasn't, then he needs to re-enroll in his sixth grade health class to learn that when you stick your junk in a vagina, it may produce a pregnancy.

Seriously. This argument is so old and so tiresome. If you get a woman pregnant, that's your kid. You need to take care of your kid. Is that too hard a concept to grasp?

You see, that's why male contraceptives are a big deal. Currently, the only way for a man to have sex and have any say in whether the woman gets pregnant is either irreversible with some significant probability or ineffective with some significant probability: You can get snipped or use a condom. That's it. Woman can use the pill, and since that's a relatively reliable contraceptive that also doesn't prevent the woman from getting pregnant later when she wants to, it's the most widely used method of birth control. It's however 100% in the control of the woman, who can therefore basically unilaterally decide to get pregnant. So yes, it does take two, but the realities are such that women can and do get pregnant to get a commitment out of men, even if it ends up being just financial commitment.

If he wasn't, then he needs to re-enroll in his sixth grade health class to learn that when you stick your junk in a vagina, it may produce a pregnancy.

Seriously. This argument is so old and so tiresome. If you get a woman pregnant, that's your kid. You need to take care of your kid. Is that too hard a concept to grasp?

That's just it. He didn't 'get her pregnant.' Both of them got her pregnant. So, if she's going to have the unilateral say in taking the fetus to term, then, by default, she should be solely responsible for it. With power comes responsibility, with no power, comes none. Ideally, she should have to enter into a contract with him (or get married) for financial support/fatherhood, but otherwise he should have the same right of refusal she does. This keeps the table balanced and encourages children only when both parents are truly ready to be parents, financially and mentally. It prevents her from using the kid as a battering ram to get him to commit when he's clearly not ready to, which happens a lot in today's society. This would eliminate a ton of highschoolesque melodrama that surrounds pregnancy today. Dr Phil would go out of business which would be a benefit to everyone..

The rules you're conforming to come from a time when women didn't have a choice. It was fair as women, especially pregnant ones, weren't allowed to work all that much and were very dependent on men for support. Today, things are very different, and it's about time that women gave up the privileges of chattel status if they want out of it.

sorry, I shouldn't have broken my statement into two posts, but it happens.. there's another reply somewhere on this poor excuse for code

Well... um, if the man in this hypothetical situation was raped for that there sperm, then sure--he shouldn't pay a red cent.

Under current US law, it doesn't make one iota of difference whether he was raped, or even if he was way under the age of consent and the adult woman in question was in a position of power over him - child support is for the benefit of the kids, and everyone knows it benefits kids to be brought up by a kiddy-rapist enough to justify making one of her victims pay for it.

Of course she needs to take care of her kid. And single mothers who don't have the dads stick around DO. Are you saying they don't? Saying that it's a 50/50 deal makes me misandric? I'd say the opposite. Children need a father in their lives, imho, and the world would be a better place if more men stepped up to the plate. it's *getting* better, but it needs work.

I don't know what women you've met in life, but I assure you, I ain't one of them. Neither are many. Have you ever thought that your selection and

"I also think that a father has the right to know if he has a child, so I'm completely in favour of paternity testing"

Absolutely. The only times I'd say "Oh, c'mon," is if it's obvious he's just being a dick. Some men will do anything to get out of that responsibility, even if it takes lying, calling her a 'whore'. But even then, fine, have your paternity test. In that case I'd say that the father would have to pay for it, unless it turned out it wasn't his kid. That's to prevent defaming the woman he's acc

The only way I would agree with you is if it was decided beforehand that she WOULD have an abortion if she got pregnant. I mean... honestly, do you understand what most women go through in having an abortion? It's not a flippant contraceptive, but something that can destroy you mentally, emotionally, etc.

I'm being serious now, really, because the two options you have here is something that involves instant gratification: "abort the baby, done," and "she had the kid, I'm outta here." Do you understand how e

I don't see how my saying that a man should support his child means that I think total absolutes about women getting everything they want with no accountability. I'm honestly trying to find the words to say to this, because I'd said I wasn't going to say anything else (I've raped this topic comments-wise today), so I want to make everything clear in these "final words". Or what I HOPE are final...

Never once have I said anything about women getting everything and men getting nothing, but that doesn't seem to matter; to some men, it seems that anytime someone brings up a disadvantage in the 'Woman's World', they jump up and start pointing fingers, saying "we have it bad, too!" What's funny is that while I have a small feminist side, I see the bullshit that goes on on my side of the court. I could give examples, but I've been too wordy already. Fact is, I try my best to be a reasonable, well-rounded and deep-thinking individual. I can shoot off the mouth and be opinionated, but if no one did that, there wouldn't be anything interesting on the internet.

We DO have a little more responsibility. And in a lot of cases, that's what fucks us up the ass without the benny of a reach-around. We're damned if we do, damned if we don't. If you're a pregnant teenager, some schools will try to bar you from attending but let the baby-daddy (gah, hate using that, but it seems right here, dunno why) roam the halls without repercussion. If we choose to abort when the man doesn't want us to, we're baby-killing bitches. If we choose to keep the baby, we're money-hungry bitches. If we choose to not have sex on the first or second date, we're labelled prudes. If we DO have sex on the first or second date, we're sluts. We do have options, and we DON'T have options, simply because we can be vilified for any one of them. Saying this, I'm not trying to play the tearful, "WOE IS ME, I'M A WOMAN!" card, it is what it is. How do we win? Give the man the decision entirely? Compromise, when it's already too hot to touch? What about the families on both sides, do they have a say? I DO side with women on this issue a little more, yes, because the products of both abortion and pregnancy will stay with her forever. I know the latter well; I had to have a c-section, because my son was born at 11.6 pounds, no lie. I've never recovered from it, even when I joined a gym and went through serious fitness and dieting routines. I'd never take it back, however. All this doesn't mean the man doesn't get a say in what happens, but it IS hard to say how it's finalized, as yes, the woman is the most affected. Sorry... you might not like it as a man, but it's just fact. Sometimes I don't like it either, because I'm a person who wants to be completely impartial, even in things like this. But I always keep coming back to the "who's affected the most by this?" point.

The best solution is what a lot of men (and some women) do not want to hear: this can allllll be avoided in NOT having sex with someone on the first, second or even third date. This goes for both sexes. If Jane and Joe have sex on the first date and Jane gets pregnant, neither one of them can bitch about the decisions being made on either side, whether or not the woman's insisting on it being her way. If Jane got to know Joe, she'd learn he didn't want kids and would want an abortion be done and nothing but. If Joe got to know Jane, he'd learn that she didn't want an abortion, even if it was with some guy she just met. Would this seriously kill anyone? I'm not talking "Wait for marriage," crap, just KNOW the person you're going to sleep with before you sleep with them. Neither side can feign ignorance. And it doesn't even have to be a two-hour lecture on 'Why Joe Doesn't Want Kids: Part VII, Money'... just, "Not without a condom--too young for kids *wink*" or the like.

It's not hard. In the end, it's 50/50, because someone else isn't responsible for another person, no matter how deceitful the man or woman may be. If a man has sex (especially unprotected sex, taking her word tha

I believe the "parent" was suggesting that when two consenting adults agree not to have children and select female contraceptives as the means to ensure that decision, the female is responsible for applying the contraceptive. This was the agreement. If said female chooses to break the agreement then the resulting pregnancy was her choice, not her male partners choice.

When this or another reliable male contraceptive is available both parties will be able to ensure the agreement is respected without resorting

is structured in a way to implies that the government making things safer is a bad thing. It's a loaded comment with a surprising amount of things implied, and the sentiment behind it is why we get stuff like this [yahoo.com].

Plus it's ridiculously [wikipedia.org] well documented that the government makes things safer.

You're missing one important aspect of drug testing: without sufficient testing, we can't actually know that the drug will save 10% of heart patients. Until we've tested the drug in large-scale, well conducted clinical trials and then carefully checked those trials over for the usual drug company shenanigans, for all we know it actually kills 5% of patients that would otherwise survive.

Have you ever seen mice balls?!
If my Rat was still alive I would give him this stuff. I would usually carry him around while at the pet shop and his gargantuan balls always became a conversation piece. Especially to the immature teens.